CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘yaman akdeniz’ Category

Critics Challenge New Internet Controls in Turkey

Dorian Jones | Instanbul April 25, 2011

Turkey already bans more websites than any other European country. Now the government is set to introduce new controls that officials say are needed to protect children. Critics fear they represent an effort control the web.

The Turkish government calls its new Internet controls Safe Use of the Internet. They are scheduled to take effect in August and will require all Internet users to choose from one of four filter profiles operated by their server provider. Law Professor Yaman Akdeniz at Bilgi University in Istanbul says the measures open the door to government censorship of the Internet.

‘We are concerned that the government [will] enforce and develop a censorship infrastructure,’ said Akdeniz. ‘Even the standard profile is a filter system and the problem is government mandated, government controlled and there are no other countries within the EU or Council of Europe that has a similar system. And the decision also states if anyone who tries to circumvent the system, further action may be taken.’

Government officials say the new regulations are needed to protect families, particularly children, from pornography. But critics say it is unclear which websites can be banned and for what reasons, and the regulations can also be used to silence political websites. Nadire Mater is the head of the Turkish human-rights web page Bianet.

‘Depending on the government, depending on the ministers, one can be put on the blacklist,’ said Mater. ‘This is not a democracy. We’ve experienced this before, because police, from time to time, they distributed these blacklists, and in some Internet cafes or companies we were getting the complaints from the visitors they were saying that we don’t have any access [to] Bianet.’

Bianet criticizes the government for establishing the new measures by decree, rather than by a vote in parliament and is challenging the new controls in court. Web freedom is a concern within the European Union, which Turkey is seeking to join. EU enlargement commissioner Stefan Fule stressed those concerns before the EU parliament earlier this year.

‘Freedom of press means guaranteeing a public space for free debate, including on the Internet,’ said Fule. ‘The European Parliament’s draft resolution rightly underlines these issues.’

That concern centers on Turkey’s record of courts banning more websites than any other European country. In 2009, the state stopped releasing figures, but the latest number is believed to be in excess of 12,000. Again, Professor Akdeniz.

‘Several thousands web sites have been blocked,’ said Akdeniz. ‘And although the government claims that they predominantly block access to pornographic websites, several hundred alternative-media websites, especially websites dealing with the Kurdish debate, are blocked access to for political reasons.’

Hurriyet Daily News: Lights back on for Blogger in Turkey

Wednesday, March 16, 2011
ERISA DAUTAJ ŞENERDEM
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News

Access to the website, a property of Google Inc., was banned two weeks ago by a local court in Diyarbakır upon a complaint by Digiturk.

Access to the website, a property of Google Inc., was banned two weeks ago by a local court in Diyarbakır upon a complaint by Digiturk.

New evidence showing that Google had taken action against copyright violators led a prosecutor’s office in Southeast Turkey to decide Monday to lift the ban on the company’s popular blogging platform Blogger.

The ban, which entered into force Feb. 28 following a court decision, was issued based on a complaint by satellite television provider Digiturk that matches broadcast on its Lig TV channel had been illegally posted by several Blogger users.

‘We applied [to have the ban removed] to the prosecutor’s office, which required that an expert opinion be prepared regarding our case,’ cyber-rights activist Yaman Akdeniz, a lawyer and professor at Istanbul Bilgi University, told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Wednesday.

The prosecutor’s office in the Southeast province of Diyarbakır – home of the court that issued the ban – decided to lift the ban after the expert opinion found that the accounts linked to the IP addresses on which Digiturk had filed its complaint had been deactivated by Google, Akdeniz said.

‘The court could have also asked for an expert opinion before making its decision [to issue the ban], but it didn’t,’ Akdeniz said. He added that it was obvious the court worked only ‘[based] on paper,’ not even making the effort to visit the websites it was deciding about.

Despite the prosecutor’s freezing of the Diyarbakır court’s decision, Akdeniz said the risk of being banned again remains for Blogger and other sites.

‘Despite this decision, the risk of banning [Blogger] or any other similar website exists,’ Akdeniz said.

Access to the website, a property of Google Inc., was banned two weeks ago by a local court in Diyarbakır upon a complaint by Digiturk, which owns the broadcast rights to Turkish Super League games. The decision to issue a blanket ban on the site was harshly criticized by thousands of Turkish bloggers, who said it had restricted their fundamental freedom of expression.

An initial appeal of the court’s decision made by Turkish citizens and Blogger users was rejected by the court for procedural reasons. The prosecutor’s office meanwhile accepted a second appeal based on new evidence that access to the blog accounts on that Digiturk had complained about had been blocked by Google.

According to Akdeniz, the law on artistic and intellectual works requires a complainant to warn the owner of a website accused of breaching copyright, and says complainants have the right to file a court case if the site’s owner does not respond within 72 hours.

‘Given that such a [warning] mechanism already exists, at least for the Blogger case, I think people [and companies] should be encouraged to make use of it,’ he said, adding that this would take less time and have less of a cost to all parties.

Google authorities had moved to restore access to Blogger following the court decision, saying in a press release March 3 that the company was concerned about content posted via Blogger that breaches the copyrights of other entities and would take immediate action upon legal notification of such cases.

Thousands of websites are banned in Turkey under the framework of Turkish Law No. 5651, which regulates publications and copyright infringements on the Internet, and Law No. 5846 on artistic and intellectual works. The former has been more common as a basis for court decisions on banning websites.

Cyber-Rights.Org.TR: Blogspot Blocking Order has been revoked
14.03.2011 – Entry by Dr. Yaman Akdeniz

Today, the Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor’s Office revoked the blocking order issued by the Diyarbakir 5th Criminal Court of First Instance on 14 January 2011 with regards to the popular Blogspot platform used by millions of people around the world. The decision will now be communicated to the Turkish ISPs and access should be back to normal within the next few days.

Cyber-Rights.Org.TR orchestrated several appeals representing a Blogspot user based in Turkey and these appeals were lodged three days before Google managed to lodge an appeal with the Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor’s Office. As the allegedly infringing blogs (goltvnet.blogspot.com, sportrhd.blogspot.com, trgoals2.blogspot.com, freesoccertrhd.blogspot.com, and izleligtvblog.blogspot.com) were removed by Google there was no further need to block access to the Blogspot Platform. A Court dealing with the appeal requested an expert opinion with regards to the claim of removal of the above mentioned blogs and the expert report backed the claims made by our legal team representing İdil Elveriş, the owner of travelmind-idilka.blogspot.com.

Dr. Yaman Akdeniz issued the following statement: “Blogspot decision should not have been issued in the first place. We hope this will be the last time access to a web 2.0 based platform will be blocked from Turkey. However, it would be naive to believe that this will be the end of it. The future remains bleak in terms of Internet restrictions in Turkey.”

Bianet: Turkey Inquired about Internet Censorship

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Turkey Inquired about Internet Censorship

The European Court of Human Rights examines two applications from Turkey regarding cases of internet censorship in 2009. Turkish authorities were allowed time till 9 June to submit a response. Internet expert Akdeniz emphasized the international importance of the decision.

Istanbul – BİA News Center
10 March 2011, Thursday

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is examining the application against internet censorship filed by Turkish nationals Ahmet Yıldırım and Yaman Akdeniz. The international court expects an item of written comment from Turkey until 9 June.

According to a written statement published by the Cyber-Rights.org.tr news site on 7 March, the ECHR merged the files regarding the access ban to Google sites and to LastFM.com on 31 January. The restrictive decision (No. 2009/337) on the Google services was given by the 2nd Magistrate Criminal Court of Denizli (western Turkey) on 23 June 2009. Access to the music sharing site LastFm.com was banned by the Beyoğlu (Istanbul) Public Chief Prosecution on 26 June 2009 (decision no. 2009/45).

On 16 February, the ECHR posted the particularities of both applications on its website together with a list of questions forwarded to the Turkish authorities.

The court allowed time till 9 June for Turkey to respond to the questions. Cyper-Rights.org.tr reported that the court in Strasbourg announced 24 April as the deadline for non-governmental organizations that applied for co-plaintiff status to submit their point of view.
Akdeniz: Important decision for all members of the Council of Europe

Assoc. Prof. Yaman Akdeniz commented the issue on behalf of the website as follows:

‘The Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu emphasized several times the decision ‘not to make a defence regarding trials (at the ECHR) on freedom of thought’. However, only in June 2011 we will see whether this political decision is also valid for applications filed to the ECHR’.

‘The Strasbourg Court examines [the applications related to] internet censorship. These two applications carry importance not only for Turkey but for all member states of the Council of Europe’, Akdeniz indicated. (EÇ/VK)

Hurriyet Daily News: European court asks Turkey to explain its Internet bans

Wednesday, March 9, 2011
ERISA DAUTAJ ŞENERDEM
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News

A European court has asked Turkish authorities to explain their use of the country’s law to ban websites, responding to applications by two complainants who say the bans violate their right to freedom of expression.

‘Users of different websites are being punished because others infringe legal provisions,’ said complainant Yaman Akdeniz, a cyber-rights activist and a law professor at Istanbul Bilgi University. He applied to the European Court of Human Rights on April 6, arguing that the Turkish government’s ban on the website Lastfm.com.tr violated his rights.

The decision to consider the case is a landmark one, Akdeniz said, explaining that it was the first time the court had taken up a complaint related to Internet bans.

‘The court’s final decision will set an important precedent for all Council of Europe member countries,’ Akdeniz told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Wednesday.

Responding to the applications by Akdeniz and another Turkish complainant, the European court issued a request last month to Turkish authorities, asking them to answer by June 9, three questions of a general nature about the use of Turkish law to ban certain websites.

‘The court asked Turkish authorities for explanations regarding the application of legal provisions to ban websites,’ Akdeniz told the Daily News.

Fellow complainant Ahmet Yıldırım, a 28-year-old doctoral student at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, applied to the European court Jan. 12, 2010, saying his personal website on Google Sites, which he used to publish his academic work, had been banned by Turkey. Both Akdeniz and Yıldırım said they appealed to the European court after having exhausted all domestic legal avenues.

Both applications were made before Turkish authorities’ recent ban of the popular blogging platform Blogger. The website, a property of Google Inc., was blocked in response to a complaint by the satellite television provider Digiturk about bloggers illegally posting football matches broadcast on Digiturk’s Lig TV channel.

The decision to ban Lastfm also involved a rights dispute; authorities used Turkish Law No. 5846 on artistic and intellectual works to issue the ban, arguing that the site had been used to illegally publish artistic works to which the user did not own the rights.

According to Akdeniz, who initiated the Lastfm-related case, authorities should identify and punish individuals who break the law, rather than punishing all Internet users by issuing blanket bans on websites.

Lastfm was banned in Turkey on Sept. 19, 2009, following a lawsuit brought to court by the Turkish Phonographic Industry Society, or MÜ-YAP.

In his complaint related to Google Sites, Yıldırım argued that Turkish authorities sought to ban access to the website for breaching provisions of Turkish Law No. 5651, on the regulation of publications and copyright infringements on the Internet. He said this violates his right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Turkey’s controversial Internet bans have been a subject of much debate by experts as well as by millions of Turkish Internet users who have lost access to popular sites. Experts have criticized the implementation of Law No. 5651 and related laws to ban websites, saying that those who break laws must be tracked down and punished for their actions, rather than making all Turkish internet users pay the price.

Questions from the European court

The first question posed to Turkish authorities by the European court was related to Akdeniz’s application. ‘As a user, can Mr. Akdeniz claim to be a victim of an infringement to rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention?’ it asked.

Another question dealt with whether the complainants’ freedom of expression had been infringed upon, particularly their right to receive or communicate information or ideas according to Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Convention. The European court also asked Turkish authorities whether Turkish law permitted it to put an end to unjustified infringements on freedom of expression, and whether it had responded to the demands of Article 13 of the Convention.

Index on Censorship: Fighting political internet censorship in Turkey: one site won back, 10,000 to go

Fighting political internet censorship in Turkey: one site won back, 10,000 to go – 04 Mar 2011

With the enactment of Law No. 5651 in May 2007, Turkey has become the land of internet censorship, argues Dr Yaman Akdeniz

In January 2010, an OSCE report on internet censorship documented that 3,700 internet websites were blocked in Turkey. As of February 2011, that number is estimated to be around 10,000.

Although the infamous YouTube ban has miraculously ceased, the two and half year ban triggered three different applications to the European Court of Human Rights, all alleging infringement of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Two further applications about blocked access to Google Sites and Last.fm are currently pending at the Strasbourg Court. Meanwhile, the Turkish courts, and the Telecommunications Communication Presidency (TIB), an administrative body created by Law No. 5651 (entitled ‘Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by means of Such Publication’) continue to issue blocking orders.

There is no access to several well-known international websites, including playboy.com, vimeo.com, ffffound.com, and the popular blogging service Blogspot was shut off during the last few months. At the same time Professor Richard Dawkins’s website (richarddawkins.net) has been blocked since September 2008 while a related defamation case slowly progresses through the Turkish civil law court.

The most publicised of the blocked sites include Sanalika.com, a Turkish virtual world and playground; Azadiyawelat.com, the website of a Kurdish newspaper; Fizy.com, a popular music and video sharing Turkish website which won an award for best music search engine at the 2010 Mashable Awards; and 5Posta.org, a popular blog which contains articles about sexuality, sexual politics, and internet censorship.

Legal challenges

While the number of blocked websites continues to grow, legal challenges to blocking orders have also begun; for example, involving the political website (http://bugunkilicdaroglu.com) which was set up to assess the policies and strategies of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of CHP, the main Turkish opposition party.

The name of this particular blog-style site stands for ‘Today Kılıçdaroğlu’. The website was immediately noticed by CHP and Kılıçdaroğlu’s lawyers when it was launched in September 2010. Between 17 September and 01 October 2010, the site’s owner Timur Manisali wrote 12 articles on his website.

That was enough criticism for the CHP leader and his lawyers obtained an injunction to block access to the website. Manisali used his website to announce one of the lawyer’s blocking order, along with a farewell article criticising the censorious action.

The blocking order, issued by the Ankara 3rd Criminal Court of Peace, was not communicated directly to Timur Manisali, nor was he given the chance to defend himself. Furthermore, the judgment was unclear because it did not specify the reason for the decision.

In November 2010, Manisali was contacted by Cyber-Rights.Org.TR, a non-profit organisation that offers pro-bono legal assistance to victims of internet censorship in Turkey. A defence team was immediately set up, and an appeal was lodged on 3 December 2010 to overturn the blocking decision with an appellate court, the Ankara 11th Criminal Court of First Instance.

It was argued by the defence that order should be nullified as the issuing court did not have the authority to block access to the website in the first place under Article 9 of Law No. 5651.

It should be pointed out that Article 9 of Law No. 5651 provides a new procedure for internet content in violation of personal rights: the individual alleging that their rights have been infringed by a website is encouraged to seek the removal of the content from the website, but not the blocking of the website carrying the allegedly illegal content.

Article 9 does not contain any provisions on ‘blocking’ and private law matters can only result in ‘removal’ (take down of the particular infringing article), together with the publication of an apology if a Court deems it necessary. Therefore, since 23 May 2007 when the Article 9 provisions came into effect, the courts are no longer empowered to issue blocking orders with regards to private law matters, including for claims of defamation and other personal rights.

The defence in the http://bugunkilicdaroglu.com case pointed this fundamental irregularity to the appellate court. Furthermore, it was argued that the writings of Timur Manisali should be regarded as political speech and therefore, should be protected rather than censored.

The defence argued that there was no defamation on the website, and despite the claims of Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu’s lawyers to the contrary the website did not need any permission to use Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu’s name or photo on the website, or to use his name on the website’s domain name.

Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu is a well-known political figure and as the European Court of Human Rights has stated many times, the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regards to government officials and politicians. In a democratic system the actions or omissions of a politician, in this case the leader of the main Turkish opposition party, must be subject to close scrutiny.

According to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe: ‘political figures have decided to appeal to the confidence of the public and accepted to subject themselves to public political debate, and are therefore subject to close public scrutiny and potentially robust and strong public criticism through the media over the way in which they have carried out or carry out their functions’.

As to the limits of acceptable criticism, the Strasbourg Court established in Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2) (judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV) that:

‘they are wider with regards to a politician acting in his public capacity than in relation to a private individual. A politician inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must display a greater degree of tolerance, especially when he himself makes public statements that are susceptible of criticism. [Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu] is certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, even when he is not acting in his private capacity; but the requirements of that protection have to be weighed against the interests of open discussion of political issues, since exceptions to freedom of expression must be interpreted narrowly. ‘

On 6 January 2011 the Ankara 11th Criminal Court of First Instance overturned the decision of the Ankara 3rd Criminal Court of Peace by lifting the injunction which resulted in the blocking of http://www.bugunkilicdaroglu.com.

The Court accepted the objections raised by the defence team, stating that Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu’s lawyers did not specify their objections with the website in their petition, and further, the complainants can only request the removal of specific content subject to Article 9.

It found that, in any case, the courts cannot issue blocking orders by relying on Article 9. Therefore, according to the Court the blocking order issued by the Ankara 3rd Criminal Court of Peace was illegal.

The unjustified political censorship of Timur Manisali’s website lasted nearly three and a half months. His website is now back online. In a press release he said that his criticism of Mr Kılıçdaroğlu does not exceed the limits of political discourse, and the attempt to limit his freedom of expression was unacceptable.

According to Manisali, rather than spending time to block access to his website, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and his political party should criticise the Turkish government’s internet censorship policy.

Undoubtedly the internet censorship saga will continue in Turkey, but there is some hope as the website owners are starting to fight back through these legal channels.

Dr Yaman Akdeniz is Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, and Director of Cyber-Rights.Org

BBC News: Blogspot banned in football row

04.03.2011

The row is over who has the right to broadcast Turkish Super League football matches.

A row over who can broadcast football matches in Turkey has led to Google’s Blogger site being blocked.

A court in Turkey issued the ban in response to a copyright complaint by satellite TV firm Digiturk.

It complained when it discovered that some matches it was broadcasting were showing up on blogspot blogs written on the Blogger site.

About 600,000 Turkish bloggers are thought to use the Google tool to publish their personal journals.

The ban has been imposed because Turkey’s copyright protection laws allow for entire services to be shut down.

In October, 2010 Turkey lifted a ban on YouTube that had been in place for two years.

Google confirmed the Blogger ban in a statement and said those with worries about piracy should turn to its easy to use takedown systems rather than seek a wholesale shutdown.

‘The process for making a copyright claim for content uploaded to Blogger is straightforward and efficient, and we encourage all content owners to use it rather than seek a broad ban on access to the service,’ said a spokesperson.

‘That way, people in Turkey can continue to enjoy Blogger whilst we respond to the specific complaint.’

Digiturk said it went to court to protect its right to broadcast Turkey’s Spor Toto Super League games on its Lig channel. Digiturk said the ban had not curbed all piracy as other sites beyond Blogger were still showing pirated streams of football matches.

Cyber-rights activist Yaman Akdeniz told the Hurriyet news site that the ban was a ‘disproportionate response’ that would inconvenience millions of people.

‘I understand there is a legitimate concern regarding Digiturk’s commercial rights but banning all these websites will not solve the issue,’ he told the site.

Blogger becomes latest victim of Turkish Internet bans – Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

Wednesday, March 2, 2011
ERISA DAUTAJ ŞENERDEM
ISTANBUL – Hürriyet Daily News

The ban on Blogger is expected to fully go into effect within a few days unless it is successfully challenged in court.

The ban on Blogger is expected to fully go into effect within a few days unless it is successfully challenged in court.

A spat over rights to broadcast Turkish football matches has led a local court to issue a blanket ban on the popular blogging platform Blogger, angering Turkish Internet users with what experts said was a disproportionate response.

The court in the southeastern province of Diyarbakır banned the website, a property of Google Inc., in response to a complaint by the satellite television provider Digiturk, which owns the broadcast rights to Turkish Super League games. Matches broadcast on Digiturk’s Lig TV channel had been illegally posted by several Blogger users on their blogs.

‘This is a disproportionate response by the court and undoubtedly has a huge impact on all law-abiding citizens,’ cyber-rights activist Yaman Akdeniz told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Wednesday, adding that millions of Turkish bloggers and blog readers would be affected by the Diyarbakır court decision.

‘[I understand] there is a legitimate concern [regarding Digiturk’s commercial rights] but banning all these websites will not solve the issue. The decision opens the way to collateral damage,’ said Akdeniz, who is also a law professor at Istanbul Bilgi University.

There are more than 600,000 Turkish bloggers actively using Blogger and some 18 million users from Turkey visited pages hosted by the site last month, Akdeniz said. The ban is expected to fully go into effect within a few days unless it is successfully challenged in court.

‘If two people plan a criminal activity on the phone, should we ban the use of telephones all over the country?’ asked Deniz Ergürel, the secretary-general of the Media Association.

‘We believe this is a wrong approach to the issue and deprives millions of bloggers and Internet users from writing and sharing ideas online,’ Ergürel, who is also a regular blogger, told the Daily News on Wednesday. He added that while the violation of Digiturk’s commercial rights should not be ignored, other solutions had to be found. ‘Even cursing, threatening or cheating over the phone is considered a crime, but this does not imply access to phones all over the country would be banned if there is a case against them,’ he said.

In a press release Wednesday, Digiturk said illegal broadcasts of the league games had not stopped despite many warnings about the issue.

‘Digiturk has spent $321 million in order to get the right to broadcast Spor Toto Super League matches. However, matches [whose broadcasting rights] belong to Digiturk and Lig TV are broadcasted by certain websites, disregarding all relevant laws,’ the company said in its statement. ‘Thus, we applied to court to ban these websites, and the court decided to ban access to them, after it was proved that although all legal procedures were conducted, the violations were not stopped.’

Bloggers and their readers reacted angrily and quickly to the court decision, with nearly 9,000 users of the social-networking website Facebook joining a group called ‘Do not touch my blog’ in less than two days after the decision was announced. Similar campaigns have also been created on other websites, such as Twitter.

‘I can understand that a company tries to protect its rights when they are violated. But I cannot make sense of the banning of all blogs for content illegally used on only a few blogs,’ regular blogger Gülşen Çetin, 24, told the Daily News on Wednesday. ‘The company that is involved says it couldn’t handle the issue with Google. Of course, everybody is responsible for their own claims, but this is not an excuse for them to cause such a big censorship event.’

In addition to harming innocent parties, the court decision is unlikely to solve the copyright problem, said another regular blogger.

‘The people doing pirate broadcasting are skilled in this. Shutting down only one or a few [sites] will not solve the problem because they will find other ways to do it,’ said Güldem Zeybek. ‘How about us, the innocent bloggers? Here, without doing anything, we face the charge of [being] criminals and have to [find ways to work around the ban]. No company’s copyrights should come before me expressing my thoughts.’

Cyber-rights activist Akdeniz drew a differentiation between regular websites and platforms for user-generated content such as Blogger, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, saying the courts must be sensitive to this distinction when they make decisions. ‘In my view, access to such platforms should not be banned, whatever the cause,’ he said, adding that other technical solutions could be found to address issues of property and intellectual rights.

‘The [impact of the decision] will be censorship, although it might not have been the court decision’s final purpose,’ said Ergürel of the Media Association. He added that depriving millions of people of a way of communicating and sharing with each other could be considered a kind of censorship.

‘We would not see such a phenomenon [like this court decision] in more developed democracies, such as in the EU countries,’ Akdeniz said.

Regulating Sex, a seminar on sex and regulation will take place at the British Academy in London on 1 February 2011 from 1400 to 1700. The seminar focuses on the regulation of sex in relation to three key areas: media, labour and the internet.

Speakers
* Laura Agustin, author of Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry (2007)
* Yaman Akdeniz, author of Internet Child Pornography and the Law (2008)
* Martin Barker, author of The Video Nasties (1984), Ill Effects: The Media-Violence Debate (2001), and The Crash Controversy (2001)
Julian Petley, author of Censoring the Word (2007) and Censorship: A Beginner’s Guide (2009) will introduce and chair the event.

The British Academy is located at 10 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AH , adjacent to the Duke of York steps leading to the Mall.

Nearest tube: Charing Cross (Cockspur Street exit), Piccadilly Circus (Lower Regent Street exit)
Buses: Piccadilly Circus, Lower Regent Street, Haymarket, Trafalgar Square
Wheelchair access: The British Academy has access for most wheelchairs.

The seminar is organized by the AHRC funded Onscenity research network. If you would like to attend, let Feona Attwood know before 20 January: f.attwood [at] shu.ac.uk. She will confirm you have a place.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, The Representative on Freedom of the Media (November 2010): Preliminary Report: Study of legal provisions and practices related to freedom of expression, the free flow of information and media pluralism on the Internet in the OSCE participating States.

This preliminary report has been commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and prepared by Dr. Yaman Akdeniz, Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey.

It presents the first stage of research into the first comprehensive study of legal provisions and practices related to freedom of expression, the free flow of information and media pluralism on the Internet in the OSCE participating States. This preliminary report was prepared in view of the OSCE review conference and OSCE Astana Summit 2010. The final study is expected to be concluded in January 2011 and will be published in both, English and Russian language.

Executive Summary
Today, many OSCE participating States are reacting to the availability and dissemination of certain types of (illegal or unwanted) content through the Internet by trying to regulate or control its dissemination. There is particularly major concern about the availability of terrorist propaganda, racist content, sexually explicit content including child pornography, as well as content defined as hate speech on the Internet.

This OSCE-wide Internet content regulation study involves a comprehensive overview of existing international legal provisions and standards relating to media freedom and freedom of expression on the Internet, and the study will assess whether and how these are incorporated into national legislation, and applied by the OSCE participating States.

Furthermore, the final study will assess the compliance of applicable national Internet legislation and practices with existing OSCE media freedom commitments, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (where applicable) and other relevant international standards (UN, CoE, etc.). For this purpose the study will involve the compilation of a comprehensive OSCE-wide legal matrix of all legal provisions related to freedom of the media, the free flow of information and media pluralism on the Internet. A survey questionnaire was prepared during the summer of 2010 and distributed to all OSCE participating States on 23 September 2010. Responses to the questionnaire were expected by 15 November, 2010. Depending on timely submissions, the study is expected to be concluded in January 2011.

This preliminary report aims to lay out the first findings of the OSCE Internet Regulation Study based 1) on the review and presentation of major international legal provisions related to the subject; 2) on the examination and assessment of the efficiency, the advantages and disadvantages of various international and national content regulation measures – particularly vis-à-vis fundamental rights of free expression and media freedom; and 3) by taking into account international as well as national academic and policy discussions on the matter. This report also includes preliminary conclusions which will be further developed based on the responses to be received from the OSCE participating States to the questionnaire.

This report argues that access-blocking measures show their inadequacy as an efficient and proportionate method to combat illegal Internet content, and raises concern about the possibility of using blocking measures or upstream filtering tools at state level to silence politically motivated speech on the Internet. The report shows that international organizations such as the Council of Europe and the European Union have recognized the inefficiency of blocking for fighting serious crimes. Furthermore, the report warns that blocking access to any Web 2.0 based applications and services such as YouTube, WordPress, Facebook, and Twitter, to mention a few, may have extreme side effects and strong implications on political expression.

Regarding the protection of children from accessing online content deemed to be harmful, the report states that participating States should encourage the application of end-user based filtering software on home computers, and in schools if their use is deemed necessary. However, the deployment of state level upstream filtering systems should be avoided at all costs.

In concluding, this preliminary report calls for the OSCE participating States to respect OSCE commitments and other international human rights principles when developing their Internet content related policies and regulations. The states’ response should be proportional, correspond to a “pressing social need”, and be in line with the requirements of democracy with regards to content based restrictions. Internet access should be regarded as a fundamental human right, and network neutrality should not only be respected but upheld by the OSCE participating States.

The Preliminary Report is available as a PDF file.